She claimed that the systems found within Biology are too complex / convoluted for a designer to rationally make it so. I think her point was that the redundant systems found in a cell means that it cannot have been designed that way.

Personally I found this argument quite interesting since I've never heard it before, and on some level I can see the logic in it, on the basis that in human designs we try to get rid of the redundant parts since they are seen as "dead weight" in most respects.

As you guys know I am an advocate that complexity = design since in order to arive at such complexity a measure of intelligence is required, the same is said for systems that rely on each other for their operation, in that they need to exist as whole systems before a fitness value can be achieved to enable their selection, meaning evolution cannot have brought them about from "small progressive changes over time".

One thing I was tempted to ask, but didn't get around to was whether or not such complexity could be the work of evolution, since you'd think that evolution would select against redundant systems since by being redundant they are not required to bring about an increase in fitness, even when they are utilised the fact they are redundant means they are not required. Whereas with a designer redundant systems could be intergrated as a fail-safe in case one fails or if additional support is required in the case of slowed or modified operation due to enviromental factors, (thus demonstrating foresight of design), also this is based on the assumption that the system is in fact redundant, perhaps there is another use which we do not know about, (such is common in Biochemistry). Additionally with the designer hypothesis we simply cannot rule out anything since we'd be assuming what the designer would and wouldn't do, which in the case of God is impossible to know.

She claimed that the systems found within Biology are too complex / convoluted for a designer to rationally make it so. I think her point was that the redundant systems found in a cell means that it cannot have been designed that way.

I lol'd. It is a straw man, a god who is limited by her imagination so she can easily refute him.

Personally I found this argument quite interesting since I've never heard it before, and on some level I can see the logic in it, on the basis that in human designs we try to get rid of the redundant parts since they are seen as "dead weight" in most respects.

As you guys know I am an advocate that complexity = design since in order to arive at such complexity a measure of intelligence is required, the same is said for systems that rely on each other for their operation, in that they need to exist as whole systems before a fitness value can be achieved to enable their selection, meaning evolution cannot have brought them about from "small progressive changes over time".

One thing I was tempted to ask, but didn't get around to was whether or not such complexity could be the work of evolution, since you'd think that evolution would select against redundant systems since by being redundant they are not required to bring about an increase in fitness, even when they are utilised the fact they are redundant means they are not required. Whereas with a designer redundant systems could be intergrated as a fail-safe in case one fails or if additional support is required in the case of slowed or modified operation due to enviromental factors, (thus demonstrating foresight of design), also this is based on the assumption that the system is in fact redundant, perhaps there is another use which we do not know about, (such is common in Biochemistry). Additionally with the designer hypothesis we simply cannot rule out anything since we'd be assuming what the designer would and wouldn't do, which in the case of God is impossible to know.

Just wondering on what you guys think.

Note: 2012th post lol

I'm with you on this one. I remember from a lecture in the Creation Superconference 2011 (and 2012 not available online) by Dr Rob Carter http://web29.streamh...obertcarter.m4v where he describes that the processing power of the cell is streamlined far beyond what we have available in modern computers. We will probably be studying this redundancy in the future to figure out how to make our computers faster. I can only imagine that an Intelligent Creator would find this extremely efficient capability desirable in His creation.

I cannot say that evolutionists would have a problem explaining this, since redundant codes might have a benefit (making a cell more robust/process better) and therefore get selected. No I take issue with far bigger things such as abiogenesis, irreducible complexity of the cell, evolution of different wings and eyes multiple times throughout history, different compatible male and female S@xual reproductive systems evolving in many different species, etc.

I lol'd. It is a straw man, a god who is limited by her imagination so she can easily refute him.

I'm with you on this one. I remember from a lecture in the Creation Superconference 2011 (and 2012 not available online) by Dr Rob Carter http://web29.streamh...obertcarter.m4v where he describes that the processing power of the cell is streamlined far beyond what we have available in modern computers. We will probably be studying this redundancy in the future to figure out how to make our computers faster. I can only imagine that an Intelligent Creator would find this extremely efficient capability desirable in His creation.

I cannot say that evolutionists would have a problem explaining this, since redundant codes might have a benefit (making a cell more robust/process better) and therefore get selected. No I take issue with far bigger things such as abiogenesis, irreducible complexity of the cell, evolution of different wings and eyes multiple times throughout history, different compatible male and female S@xual reproductive systems evolving in many different species, etc.

I agree with your analysis Yes there are bigger fish to fry, just wanted to share my experience with this since its a refreshingly new situation

I agree with your analysis Yes there are bigger fish to fry, just wanted to share my experience with this since its a refreshingly new situation

The more I think about this argument posed by your teacher, the less it makes sense. An all-knowing God would not think to make something really efficient through use of redundant systems within the cell? Really? This might make sense in one of those alternate universes in the alleged multiverse. Honestly, is this the new face of free thinking; when logic fails, expanding your mind beyond the paradigm of logic?

I am hoping she thought that the redundant systems were relatively worthless, in which case evolution would have selected them out, which would not make them more complex but over-complicated by unnecessary components. That would be much like a junk DNA or vestigial organ argument, and we all see where those led...

Here is an interesting argument I heard from one of my lecturers. She claimed that the systems found within Biology are too complex / convoluted for a designer to rationally make it so. I think her point was that the redundant systems found in a cell means that it cannot have been designed that way. Personally I found this argument quite interesting since I've never heard it before, and on some level I can see the logic in it, on the basis that in human designs we try to get rid of the redundant parts since they are seen as "dead weight" in most respects. As you guys know I am an advocate that complexity = design since in order to arive at such complexity a measure of intelligence is required, ...

Why isn't she coming up with the argument that they are too complex to have been evolved then.

God created species by no means says that God doesn't allow the nature to further streamline them in a changing environment. That is, ever since the 6 day creation, a lot could have happened to each species. Moreover, just like the case of the "junk dna", they may not be 'junk' at all. May it is just at the moment that humans failed to undertand their functionality. It is possible that in a creation, certain mechanisms are made 'hidden', and their functionality is triggered by a certain condition which humans nowaday may fail to speculate.

When we say that "X is redundant" we assume the following,

1) we understand very much well about what X is
2) we won't make the mistake to say that 'a gun is of no use' just because a gun is only used in a rare and extreme condition.

So 1) we don't understand the genes well enough, and 2) something 'junk' turns to be not junk at all.

God created species by no means says that God doesn't allow the nature to further streamline them in a changing environment. That is, ever since the 6 day creation, a lot could have happened to each species. Moreover, just like the case of the "junk dna", they may not be 'junk' at all. May it is just at the moment that humans failed to undertand their functionality. It is possible that in a creation, certain mechanisms are made 'hidden', and their functionality is triggered by a certain condition which humans nowaday may fail to speculate.

When we say that "X is redundant" we assume the following,

1) we understand very much well about what X is2) we won't make the mistake to say that 'a gun is of no use' just because a gun is only used in a rare and extreme condition.

So 1) we don't understand the genes well enough, and 2) something 'junk' turns to be not junk at all.

Very recently it has been proven that at LEAST 80% of the genome is functional. We have not looked at 20% of the genome, but it is speculated it will also be functional, and therefore that there will be no junk DNA at all in our genome:

Very recently it has been proven that at LEAST 80% of the genome is functional. We have not looked at 20% of the genome, but it is speculated it will also be functional, and therefore that there will be no junk DNA at all in our genome:

In this theory, retroviruses came from ERV mutating and migrating out of the cell, not the other way around. ERV are seen as an algorithm in the genome that God put there to allow for variation and rapid adaptation of organisms to new environments, which could explain rapid variation of kinds after the flood.

...variation-inducing genetic elements (VIGEs) [...] make sure the new variation is heritable. [...] they induce variation in the genetic algorithms and may underlie rapid adaptive radiation from uncommitted pluripotent genomes.

The more I think about this argument posed by your teacher, the less it makes sense. An all-knowing God would not think to make something really efficient through use of redundant systems within the cell? Really? This might make sense in one of those alternate universes in the alleged multiverse. Honestly, is this the new face of free thinking; when logic fails, expanding your mind beyond the paradigm of logic?

I am hoping she thought that the redundant systems were relatively worthless, in which case evolution would have selected them out, which would not make them more complex but over-complicated by unnecessary components. That would be much like a junk DNA or vestigial organ argument, and we all see where those led...

I had the same feeling, the more I thought about it the less of an argument it seemed to be.

I went and saw her after the next lecture and basically said that having more systems allows a cell greater control over its activities, (we were told this in 1st year so its basic stuff), which would therefore be useful in a design. When I started with my spill I saw a smile so I guess she might like talking about the philsophy of science, (which is great because many people I meet do not care one iota).

My question is, why is God being discussed in a science class? Science is only the study of the natural world, when you talk about God you are going into a theological/philosophical discussion. Saying that organisms are too complex to be designed is more of a philosophical argument and such statements do not belong in the classroom. Science is not allowed to make such judgments about God.